Michael Paquier wrote: > Sure. However do we need to introduce this much complication as a > goal for this patch though whose goal is just to provide hints about > the progress of the work done by vacuumlo?
Yeah, I went off on a tangent when realizing that ~500 lines of C client-side code in vacuumlo could be turned into ~50 lines of plpgsql in a block. That was not meant as on objection to the patch (besides I followed the plpgsql approach and got disappointed with the performance of lo_unlink() in a loop compared to the client-side equivalent, so I won't bother -hackers with this idea anymore, until I figure out why it's not faster and if I can do something about it). One comment about the patch: + long to_delete = 0; ... + to_delete = strtol(PQcmdTuples(res), NULL, 10); I believe the maximum number of large objects is almost 2^32, and as a count above 2^31 may not fit into a signed long, shouldn't we use an unsigned long instead? This would also apply to the preexisting "deleted" variable. Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite
